The Supreme Court doubles down on Citizens United, in one of the most destructive rulings ever for the country. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and E.J. Dionne are here with reaction.

And it turns out Republicans love Obamacare, as long as you don`t call it that. Former insurance executive Wendell Potter on what it means if the individual mandate dies and the rest of the Affordable Care Act lives.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.

Right wingers can no longer hide behind states rights when it comes to creating radical immigration laws. A ruling from the highest court in the land proves states can only go so far. The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of striking down most of the provisions in Arizona`s controversial immigration law, Senate Bill 1070. The ruling says states cannot override federal laws on immigration.

Here`s what was struck down: Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for not carrying identification, saying whether or not you`re a legal citizen. Arizona can`t make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job. Many think that`s a civil rights issue. Law enforcement cannot arrest someone based on suspecting the person is in the country illegally.

But the ruling also keeps intact the most controversial part of the law, the papers please provision, allowing law enforcement to check the immigration status of people they detain.

President Obama said in a statement he was pleased with the overall ruling but also concerned. The controversial provision is still alive. "Going forward, we must insure the Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans as the court`s decision recognizes."

The Supreme Court, what could happen here is that they could wind up taking up this provision again down the road. But right now, it`s up to the state courts to determine whether the practice is unconstitutional.

Republican Governor Jan Brewer jumped into space-saving mode late this afternoon. The law she champions basically got smoked by the Supreme Court. She put on a happy face today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BREWER: The heart of Senate Bill 1070 has been proven to be constitutional. Arizona and every other state`s inherent authority to protect and defend its people has been upheld.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Brewer was inflexible in questions with reporters. She was asked about the majority of provisions of the Supreme Court being struck down, but Brewer didn`t stray from her script.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BREWER: Today, the state of Arizona and Senate Bill 1070 was vindicated and the heart of the bill was upheld. I believe we have accomplished a lot and that it was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. And that we will move forward and now it has been validated unanimously by the United States Supreme Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: You know what this country needs? A real dose of honesty. Why can`t the Republicans and the Democrats just come together on this issue and start from this vantage point? We both have failed. Your party and our party, we haven`t been able to get it done. Can we start over now?

I mean, Jan Brewer is the Baghdad Bob of right wing immigration laws. I mean, she says the court upheld the heart of Senate Bill 1070, but it only upheld the right for the law enforcement to ask for documentation. Brewer is proud of one key achievement, the ability to racially profile suspected undocumented immigrants.

Republican officials like Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, you have to ask yourself the cession, are they interested in real immigration reform? I mean, if they were, they would be praising the number of immigrant deportations last year under President Obama -- 396,906. They should be pleased with the doubling of border patrol agents and technology since 2004 -- something again President Obama is responsible for.

The president is enacting immigration reform even without the help of Republicans in Congress. His enforcement action regarding children of undocumented immigrants is another major reform. The president has offered solutions and policy changes while the Congress has done nothing. The only thing the GOP has offered really is racial profiling on a state level.

Mitt Romney told a crowd of top donors today, "I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states, not less." This is the closest he came to offering an opinion about the Supreme Court ruling.

Romney`s wishy-washy stance on immigration has led to scenes like this -- protesters gathering outside Romney`s fund-raising luncheon in Scottsville, Arizona, today.

The Supreme Court ruling today shows the importance of immigration reform, no doubt about it. Arizona was smack-down for trying to have its own immigration policy in creating new crimes to do what? Target immigrants. Racial profiling. That`s what it ended up doing.

This is an issue to be decided on the federal level. It`s interesting how a right wing court said no, no state rights here, guys. It`s got to be the federal law.

The one presidential candidate that has a comprehensive position on immigration is the guy that already has the Oval Office. The other guy is out to lunch with billionaires.

Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question: will Republicans pay the price at the polls for their position on immigration?

Text A for yes, text B for no, to 622639. You can always go to our blog at Ed.MSNBC.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

Can we start from this vantage point? That both parties have failed on this issue but it`s an awfully big lift, and this president has really done something whether you like it or not. Most Latinos do.

Joining me tonight is Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, who is also the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.

Congressman, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.

SCHULTZ: You know, this is such an important issue for our country because if we don`t get this right, where do we move from here? What`s the next generation do?

But I want to start with the Arizona law and this ruling by the Supreme Court. It still says racial profiling is going to happen and it doesn`t do anything to curb that. Are you troubled by that?

GRIJALVA: Now, I think that`s a poisonous aspect of the decision. It leaves open the possibilities for persons like Joe Arpaio in my state who sees that as no consequence and civil liberties and civil rights as no consequence, so he`s -- that`s why he`s in court, to abuse that police authority that local officials have. We have great people in our state, sheriffs, police chiefs across our state, who are saying that this law was wrong from the beginning, and that it was a liability for local communities.

SCHULTZ: What do you make of Jan Brewer`s response?

GRIJALVA: Well, you know, this law was delusional when it began. And unfortunately, our governor continues to be delusional. The fact that the core about whose right it is to set immigration law was decided today and it is a federal congressional responsibility, and she still continues to believe that because a section, which is onerous, which is poisonous, continues to be alive in this legislation 1070, that there is a victory.

There`s not a victory. It`s a bad precedent for the country. It is a bad precedent for public policy, due process, 14th Amendment. And it`s going to be challenged legally. It`s going to be challenged politically, and that`s the way it should be, because I really believe that that portion of it was as constitutional at the rest of them.

SCHULTZ: Well, this was the hot button issue.

GRIJALVA: There`s no question.

SCHULTZ: And so in some respects, those who do have a chip on their shoulder so to speak would say, good, we can move forward from here. I mean, don`t you see it that way?

GRIJALVA: Yes, and that`s what I think is the most disturbing about that portion that the Supreme Court kind of held in terms of the constitutionality is that it allowed personalities driven by motives beyond the law like Arpaio and others, to use that discretion that the court has given them in this interim period to basically take away people`s rights and abuse people`s privileges.

SCHULTZ: All right. The Bush administration couldn`t do it. The Obama administration ran into a filibuster. I mean, how much responsibility is on the Congress now to get immigration reform moving?

I mean, Jan -- I want to play this for you. Jan Brewer is blaming the Democrats for not getting immigration reform passed. There she is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BREWER: We also cannot forget that President Obama and his party had both houses in Congress for two years and could have secured our borders and fulfilled the promise to fix our broken immigration system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Your response, Congressman?

GRIJALVA: Well, I kind of find it curious. Other than myself and Congressman Pastor, who we have been consistently for comprehensive reform, we`ve been for a bipartisan solution, we`ve been for the DREAM Act, we supported that all through the years, and there`s not one Republican, in Arizona, in our delegation, including our senators, that has helped in that bipartisan effort.

In fact, they have set up barriers. I find it ironic that the people that harp the most about the states need to do it because the federal government won`t are the same ones that put every impediment in front of us here in Congress to get it done.

I think there`s a great deal on Congress should be, it`s our responsibility. We need to take care of it, and it`s time that the Republicans stepped up and acted as adults and quit exploiting this issue and exploiting the poor people that are abused by this issue.

SCHULTZ: Ironically, Mitt Romney was in Arizona today. He says she wishes the Supreme Court would have upheld the state law. What does that tell you?

GRIJALVA: It tells me he continues to be out of touch, not only on the issue of immigration but how to react to an emerging constituency in this country, a demographic shift in this country, which is the Latino community. And rather talk about accommodation, integration and working toward a solution on immigration, he`s caught between pandering and not knowing what to do.

He`s in the same boat he was in the beginning, and that -- and all of us in our community realize he has no solution and he has no ideas about what to do about this.

SCHULTZ: And, Congressman, finally, there are other states that are involved in this. You know, Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina, other states that have tried to go down this road of passing immigration laws. What do you think -- what do you think their response is going to be tonight to this Supreme Court? Where do you think they`ll go from here?

GRIJALVA: Well, the brakes have been put on in the fact they can preempt the federal government immigration law. The brakes have not been put on in terms of that section which empowers local law enforcement. I hope those states realize that this is about due process and the 14th Amendment. They should wait for all those issues to be clarified before they turn loose an agenda that is only going to further divide and economically hurt the states that have similar laws like Arizona.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much.

Remember to answer tonight`s question at the bottom of the screen, share you thoughts on Twitter @EdShow. We love it when you do that.

The other major Supreme Court case today could literally cripple democracy in this country. That`s what I believe. And I`ll share those thoughts with you. We`re going to look at Citizens United part two. I mean, that`s what it is.

SCHULTZ: Coming up, the Supreme Court rules that our democracy will continue to be sold to the highest bidder after today`s Citizens United decision part two. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and MSNBC`s E.J. Dionne will have reaction, next.

Darrell Issa makes a major admission about "Fast and Furious". This guy is wasting your time and I`ll explain how later.

And it turns out that Republicans are actually rooting for the Affordable Care Act to be upheld by the Supreme Court, even though they hate Obamacare. That report ahead.

Share you thoughts on Twitter using the #EdShow. We`re coming right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.

Something inside me tells me this is the biggest story of the day. I hope my instincts are wrong. Today, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Citizens United and threw out, threw out a Montana law that goes back to 1912.

What the Supreme Court did today was basically tell individual states that they cannot limit corporate spending in any state or local elections. It`s the second wave of Citizens United. And you may have to wonder if we have lost the country. I`m serious about that. Have we lost America? The voices of America are going to be squashed by the corporations.

The Supreme Court ruled against a Montana law designed specifically to prevent corruption. Montana`s Attorney General Steve Bullock, he argued that states should be allowed to write their own laws on corporate spending. Twenty-two other states in America agreed.

New York`s Attorney General said today`s decision ignored a state`s interest in protecting their Democratic process from the threats posed by unlimited corporate spending in campaigns. In other words, democracy took another hit today. A huge hit.

The Supreme Court wiped out over 100 years of Montana law designed to prevent corruption. Now, think about this -- the Supreme Court said to the folks of Montana, you know, you folks up there on the Plains, you haven`t been doing things right for the last 100 years so we`re going to straighten you out.

The other side likes to talk about government takeover. You know what this is? This is a government takeover. It`s the Supreme Court imposing its hard right wing view on a single state in this country.

Now, it means progressives no longer have a fighting chance at the state level to battle corporate money and, of course, corporate influence. There is no guess work about what this means because we have already seen the early aftermath of Citizens United. At the national level, we have seen how much the Republican super PAC money has dwarfed Democratic super PAC money.

At the state level, outside money helped Scott Walker outspent Tom Barrett by a score of 7-1. Every week brings more new of the Koch brothers influence in state politics. A few days ago, they raised another $400 million from fellow billionaires. I guess you could call it the wild, Wild West for corporate interests.

Now, in Montana and North Dakota, the oil companies will be free to elect the best lawmakers money can buy to deregulate everything so they can do whatever they want to the environment. That`s the way it`s going to go. That`s just one example.

Now, in every stay in the nation, local issues can now be micromanaged by conservative billionaires who can pour money into every race at every level from state houses to local judgeships.

Let`s turn to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He joins us tonight.

Governor, great to have you with us.

You know, I know you`re a positive guy. I`m a positive guy. You`ve been in business. I`ve been in business.

I`m trying to find the silver lining of something positive in this ruling. I mean, they have told you in your state, you know, for 100 years, you folks have had it wrong. We`re going to make it right so corporations can come in and just spend anything they want to spend in elections.

What`s your gut instinct and your feeling, Governor?

GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER (D), MONTANA: Well, over 100 years ago, it was two copper kings who owned all of Montana. They were the two richest people on the planet. They were both gazillionaires and they owned all of the politics in Montana. They owned every one of the legislators. In fact, when we first sent the United States senator to Washington, D.C., he bribed his way in and they wouldn`t even seat him. We were so corrupt.

So, it wasn`t the Montana legislature that passed this law. It was the Montana citizens who stood up 100 years ago, passed a referendum and said we will not allow the moneyed interest and the international corporations to own Montana anymore.

And so, we ran 100 years of clean elections. And now the Supreme Court back there in Washington, D.C., they think they know better for us in Montana. They tell us that now we have to accept dirty, secret, corporate, and even foreign money pouring into Montana, taking over our -- everything from the courthouse all the way to the statehouse.

And I`ll promise you this, until we get this reversed, the corporate interests, and they will be foreign corporate interests as well, they`re going to own everything from the White House to the courthouse. That`s what`s in store for us.

SCHULTZ: Does this ruling leave you with any options that are positive? I mean, look, I know that part of the country, you go to a pot luck fund-raiser $100 is a hell of a gift in rural America, not just in Montana. And now, this money is going to be pouring in. They`re going to be able to cash whip (ph) judges. They`re going to be able to cash whip elections and legislatures . They`re going to get the laws they want so they can run roughshod over the people.

If I`m wrong, Governor, please tell me.

SCHWEITZER: You`re not wrong. You`re absolutely right. You know, for 100 years, we`ve had very low limits. A citizen legislator could be elected and the maximum contribution they could take from an individual was $160. They couldn`t take corporate money.

We elected our legislators for between $2,000 and $5,000. That was really a citizen legislature. We`ve had clean elections in Montana.

And now, the corporate interests -- and they will be international corporate interests because there are many international companies involved in the natural resource business -- they`re going to pour their money back in and buy the cheapest government money can buy.

SCHULTZ: Well, that`s a cheap government because of course the media markets in states like yours, you know, it`s pretty easy to buy and pony up, no doubt about that.

Now, the states joining Montana, basically urge the Supreme Court to consider how fragile the democratic process is in these state and local elections. Does this ruling really cripple the democratic process? Give us your future crystal ball, what does this mean?

SCHWEITZER: Well, it`s still one person one vote, and that`s what they`ll tell you. One person, one vote, and just because we`re giving corporations the same rights as persons, we`re not giving them a vote.

But let`s face it, money is power. Money buys television advertisement, and if you have enough money buying enough television advertisement, you can sway the election. Not just sway, you can buy the election. And so, there`s not going to be the other side of the story.

So today, we have two-party system. Well, in the future, we`ll have a two-party system as well. The corporate party and corporate light party, because anybody who stands up to the dirty corporate, secret, even foreign corporation money, they`ll squash you like a bug.

The big pharmaceutical companies, the military industrial complex, the insurance companies -- if anybody stands up to them, they`ll drop $1 million or $2 million or $10 million, whatever it takes, and they`ll just put you right out of business. And that voice for the people will be lost.

SCHULTZ: A second wave of Citizens United. I think we lost a little bit of America today. I hope I`m wrong.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer -- thanks for joining us tonight.

Now, let`s turn to E.J. Dionne, MSNBC contributor, "Washington Post" columnist, and author of our -- a new book, "Our Divided Political Heart." That`s a perfect title for this story.

You know, I tell you what, E.J.? I think this ruling is more damaging than the first one because this one tells states, don`t even think about trying to do anything different than what we got on the federal level. And the voice of the people is gone. What do you think?

E.J. DIONNE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: No, I think it`s very dangerous. I was hoping as Justices Breyer and Ginsburg were, that they might use this to put limits on Citizens United or at least give states some rights. These conservatives talk all the time about how much they care about states rights. This decision is corporate rights, yes; state rights, no.

You talk about elitism, and Governor Schweitzer really made this point. I mean, you`ve got a bunch of legal theorists on the Supreme Court telling a state that its system that worked for 100 years, that they`ve just got to cast it aside because it doesn`t fit with their theory. I mean, that`s a terrible idea. And it`s totally against conservative principles.

Conservatives are supposed to rely on practical local experience.

SCHULTZ: Yes.

DIONNE: This is a radical court doing a radical thing.

SCHULTZ: Radical court, for sure.

Here`s the White House statement. "Citizens United was wrong when it was decided and as two Supreme Court justices have observed since, independent expenditures by corporations are threatening the health of our democracy. Unfortunately, the court today missed an opportunity to correct that mistake."

This is kind of a wake-up call to America. If we as a people believe that all voices should be heard in a fair debate, then we should stand up and do something about this. The Obama administration is positioned in history to make a difference. Either the country gets it or it doesn`t. Your thoughts?

DIONNE: I think they should make a big deal of this. And I think in this election, people who have all of this corporate money spent against them should make it a central issue in the campaign. And say don`t believe all that stuff. The fact that they`re spending that money against me should make you want to vote for me.

Paul Wellstone, the great late senator from Minnesota, was vastly outspent in his campaigns and he made some very funny and gripping ads about the fact he had to talk faster than everybody else because he didn`t have all that money.

Governor Schweitzer made an important point also that maybe gives some opening in the future. He kept talking about how international money might come into his state and elsewhere. There are laws against foreign contributions to American campaigns.

I think Congress -- people should push as Senator Schumer, Congressman Van Halen have, to bar foreign corporations from -- foreign-owned corporations from making contributions. That might help us begin to get a handle on what is a really dangerous situation for the country.

Darrell Issa lets the truth slip about his "Fast and Furious" witch hunt.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: No, we don`t.

SCHULTZ: And find out why Republicans are breaking with Michele Bachmann on health care.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: Obamacare as we know is the crown jewel of socialism. It is socialized medicine.

SCHULTZ: Former insurance executive Wendell Potter joins me for that story later.

BACHMANN: This is it for freedom.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Justice Antonin Scalia once said a good hard hitting dissent keeps you honest. Yet today Scalia used the Supreme Court`s ruling on the Arizona`s immigration law not to offer a legitimate challenge to the majority opinion, but to take political cheap shots. As one reporter from "Mother Jones" put it, "if you put Scalia on `Fox and Friends,` you`d have to squint to notice the difference." Good one.

In his dissent, Scalia complains about the lack of law enforcement by feds -- by the feds, even though the Obama administration has cracked down on illegal immigration. Yet Scalia writes, "Arizona bears the brunt of the country`s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services and even place their lives in jeopardy."

Scalia also used the ruling to rail against President Obama`s decision to halt deportations of thousands of young people brought here illegally as children, a policy that has nothing to do with the Arizona case. The president said at a news conference that the new program is the right thing to do in light of Congress` failure to pass the administration`s proposed revision of the immigration act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so.

As Salon.com describes it, "it`s a passage written by a man who obviously no longer cares that he sounds increasingly like a right wing talk show radio host rather than a justice of the Supreme Court."

So it`s no surprise that none other than Rush Limbaugh jumped to Scalia`s defense earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Scalia is so right on the money on this. It boggles the mind. All Arizona did was write law that mirrors federal law that Obama was not enforcing. And the court told them today they can`t do that. It is -- it`s disheartening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Let`s bring in Joan Walsh of Salon.com, syndicated radio host Michael Medved, and author and attorney Katherine Crier. Where do I start? What ever happened to the days of balls and strikes? Katherine Crier, I`ll ask you, is this the most opinionated we have ever seen a judge?

KATHERINE CRIER, AUTHOR AND ATTORNEY: Well, he`s always great fun because there`s no question that Scalia is a very intelligent man and he can write very powerful. That doesn`t mean they`re legally appropriate, but powerful cases, powerful dissents. But when you look at his varying positions -- you know, he argues his originalism, and then he says, all right, we`re talking about state sovereignty. And state sovereignty is fine when we`re talking about sort of the right wing position on immigration, but if we`re talking about campaign finance reform, maybe it`s federal. If we`re talking about medical marijuana laws, maybe it`s federal.

You watch the vacillation and the legal theory changing with the ideology. And you have to go, wait a minute, there isn`t a legal consistency here to support the reputation he has.

SCHULTZ: Joan Walsh, what is wrong with what Scalia said?

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Well, first of all, I mean, to just jump out of the world of law and the Constitution and precedent and all of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to be our guide on, and to smack a sitting president that way, I really can`t think of another example of a justice doing something that outrageous. And it`s really as though he cast off his judicial robes and revealed himself today to be a partisan hack.

I mean, there have been decisions before. He is the man who gave us George W. Bush. He did use the 14th Amendment, which had been passed to give rights to freed slaves. He used that to make George Bush president. And in the process, disenfranchised a lot of black people who didn`t have their votes counted. That was a special one, and said there could be nor precedent.

We`ve got a lot of history of Scalia doing this, but this was the worst.

SCHULTZ: Michael Medved, did Scalia embarrass the court on this one?

MICHAEL MEDVED, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I don`t think Scalia embarrassed the court. I think what Scalia was doing, to an extent, was stepping, you`re right, beyond a normal judicial role. But please remember, the president of the United States, when he had the justices in front of him at a State of the Union Address, also went way over the line in attacking the Supreme Court in a State of the Union Address.

I wish the entire process could be less politicized.

SCHULTZ: Attacking? He gave an opinion. He said he was worried about the ruling. He wasn`t attacking them.

MEDVED: He attacked the ruling. The job of the president, whether he likes the ruling or not, is to say this is the law, I will enforce it. It is not to give his opinion.

SCHULTZ: But you`re willing to say that Scalia went beyond?

MEDVED: This is a very unusual --

(CROSS TALK)

CRIER: Let`s throw the word activism in there because actually it can be applied to both sides at various times.

(CROSS TALK)

MEDVED: But there`s no activism here because it`s a dissent. And one of the problems that they had -- there were three different dissents. There was one by Justice Thomas and one by Justice Alito and one by Justice Scalia. It was because they couldn`t agree on the basis for dissent that -- and because this was basically a six to three decision, even though it was formally only five to three, because Sotomayor was excluded -- pardon me, Elana Kagan was excluded. So -- because she recused herself because she had been a solicitor general in the case.

SCHULTZ: Joan, you buy all this?

WALSH: No, I don`t. I agree with you, Ed, that I think what the president said was very mild about Citizens United. I would also remind Michael that then Sam Alito mouthed "you`re wrong," insulting him at the State of the Union. So I don`t see that the president gives up his ability to criticize a Supreme Court decision. I think that Scalia really stepped beyond the boundaries of what you do in a dissent.

SCHULTZ: Speaking of that speech and the response from Sam Alito, let`s talk about what happened today. The Supreme Court rules on Citizens United, telling 22 states you have to play by the federal rules. You can`t limit corporations` giving. Katherine Crier, I think this is bigger than the first ruling.

CRIER: I`m with you. When I heard you earlier on your program going let`s pay attention to the Montana decision -- I was in Montana a couple days ago and learned about some pretty interesting stuff about the whole 10th, 11th Amendment argument. And a lot of lawyers were pushing the Montana attorney general to assert some arguments that weren`t made. And there are certainly a lot of people at home wondering whether Montana, the governor and the A.G, asserting that they want to keep that law, did everything they could do --

SCHULTZ: How could Montana have it wrong for 100 years?

CRIER: They had it right. They`re really not sure. There are some people there not sure that their own state officials made the best arguments.

SCHULTZ: Michael, what does this mean for health care coming up on Thursday?

MEDVED: Who knows? Anything could happen as far as that`s -- there`s a lot of speculation now that Chief Justice Roberts today, when he was announcing these decisions, said we will have the rest of the decisions that are ready, which may be an implication that they are going to punt and delay this health care decision until after the election.

SCHULTZ: Wow. That would be a big move.

MEDVED: It would be a huge move, and would be very, very unusual. And by the way, it would leave the country in the lurch, because there are a lot of provisions of Obamacare that are supposed to come into play before they would actually render their decision.

SCHULTZ: Actually it would be good because health care is working.

(CROSS TALK)

CRIER: We`re talking way down the pipe, but I do think that playing it -- playing with this decision is a political football, a politicizing of the court. They need to get the decision out Thursday and let`s move on.

MEDVED: I agree with you, Katherine. There`s no doubt that would be better for the country. It would be better for the court. And let`s hope that they come up with it.

SCHULTZ: How about the consumers? How about Americans? If they strike down the mandate, Joan, this could screw up the whole law and hurt a lot of Americans.

WALSH: Yeah, if they strike down the mandate, people have lots of different opinions about the way the administration is going to come back at that, Ed. But there`s no doubt that, you know, we`re prepared for Scalia personally to reverse himself on some precedents that he has found before, because he seems -- he really seems determines to do whatever he wants based on whether it`s a right wing -- what the right wing side is.

MEDVED: If I could just jump in, Ed, one of the things that is notable about this Arizona case is that Justice Kennedy, who was appointed by President Reagan and justice -- and Chief Justice Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, both voted with what you would call the liberal side in Arizona, in striking down three aspects of the Arizona law.

And by the way, they didn`t strike down most of it. Most of it wasn`t even stopped. Most of it was already in play and already there. It`s a very big long law. There were only four sections that were controversial. There of them were struck down.

SCHULTZ: One final point I want to make to you especially, Michael, is that if the Supreme Court strikes down the law, then the Republicans will have to come up with their plan on the campaign trail, something that they really haven`t done.

MEDVED: I think it`s a big challenge.

CRIER: And single payer is going to be right there. There are an awful lot of people lined up to go, is this going to give us a chance to assert an argument that was absolutely ignored and buried.

(CROSS TALK)

WALSH: Medicare for all. We go back to Medicare for all. And that`s the debate we have.

SCHULTZ: But the Democrats would have to have the guts to push for universal health care. It wasn`t even at the table the last time. Could they give us a preview if we have to go down this road again? We could at least include it in the discussion.

MEDVED: I hope that they do, and I hope that the American people have a chance to vote on it, because I as a conservative -- I know how they`re going to vote. American people don`t want single payer.

CRIER: One final quick note, the first federal mandate I could find was back in about 1789, when the government mandated all able bodied men to have an entire list, from flintlocks to powder casings to all sorts of things, in case they got called. It was a federal mandate to spend your own money.

SCHULTZ: Joan Walsh, Michael Medved, Katherine Crier, thanks so much. Coming up, more proof that the Republican-led Fast and Furious investigation is nothing but a plot to make President Obama look bad. We`ll bring you the details. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: As the Republicans prepare to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt coming up on Thursday -- that`s when the vote might take place -- there`s more proof that the Fast and Furious investigation, nothing more than a witch hunt. Congressman Darryl Issa said there is no proof the White House was involved in a cover up. Did I hear that right? No proof?

He`s putting House Speaker John Boehner in a pretty tight spot, isn`t he? Last week, Boehner accused White House officials of misleading Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that the White House officials were involved in decisions that misled the Congress and have covered up the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, I bet the house speaker regrets those remarks because he was dead wrong and is dead wrong. House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa was asked about Boehner`s accusation on Sunday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress and are involved in a cover up?

REP. DARRYL ISSA, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: No, we don`t. And what we`re seeking are documents we know to exist, February 4th to December, that are in fact about Brian Terry`s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it.

WALLACE: I want to be clear, we have to get out. No evidence at this point that the White House is involved in a cover up.

ISSA: And I hope they don`t get involved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: There you have it, the top Republican leading the investigation has admitted there`s no evidence White House officials were involved in a cover up or is misleading Congress. Now Darrell Issa, you`re a committee chair. Don`t you have the responsibility to be a leader? Leadership is something we need to see and hear in Washington these days.

First of all, why don`t you just come forward and say, you know, I have been wrong. I`m going to call some witnesses that the Democrats want to hear from. But of course, you don`t want to hear that. All week long, all last week, we could have pulled out a montage of right wing talkers saying it`s Obama. It goes all the way to the White House. He was involved. It`s a cover up.

Instead, Darryl Issa waited all week long to go on the Sunday talking heads and say, well, we really don`t have any evidence that there was White House involvement of a cover up. Washington, it`s really working for you, isn`t it?

Tonight in our survey, I asked will the Republicans pay their price at the polls for their position on immigration. Ninety two percent of you said yes, eight percent of you said no.

Coming up, the Supreme Court is on a roll. And in three days, it rules on the Affordable Care Act. We`ll talk to Wendell Potter about what happens if the Supreme Court throws out part or all of the law.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: In the Big Finish tonight, the Supreme Court will rule on the health care law just three days from now. A brand new poll shows just how popular the law really is, even among Republicans, when President Obama`s name is not attached to it. Seventy eight percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becoming ill; 80 percent of Republicans support creating an insurance pool and insurance exchanges; 57 percent of Republicans support providing subsidies on a sliding scale to help individuals in families who cannot afford health insurance.

The Supreme Court has three basic choices. Number one, uphold the law, strike down the individual mandate, strike down the entire law. Those are the three options. But even if the Supreme Court strikes down just the individual mandate, it basically guts the health care law. Without the mandate, there is no way to pay for the most popular provision that all Americans should be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions.

I`m joined tonight by Wendell Potter, former communications director and vice president of Cigna, now with the Center for Public Integrity, and author of the book "Deadly Spin."

Mr. Potter, good to have you with us tonight. Those really are the three basic choices that are available here to the court. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, but not the requirement on pre-existing conditions, isn`t that a huge problem going forward?

WENDELL POTTER, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: It`s a huge problem because, for one thing, the insurance industry will make it a big deal. And they will be pressuring their friends in Congress and the administration to gut the rest of the bill. They will argue that without the individual mandate, some people simply will not buy insurance, even with the subsidies, and that that will mean probably the healthiest and youngest will not participate in the pool of people who need coverage.

And that will mean that premiums will go up for the rest of us. So the insurance industry has a campaign already ready to go in case the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional to persuade all of us and lawmakers that it can`t work.

SCHULTZ: They have also spent a ton of money telling the American people that it`s a lousy law. And that`s had an effect on opinion in some circles. What is the best possible outcome as you see it?

POTTER: For the whole law to be upheld. I think that even if it is upheld, we know the opponents of reform will still spend an enormous amount of money to try to weaken the law, to try to get the consumer protections stripped out. But the best case scenario for consumers, for average Americans, for most all of us is for the entire law to be upheld.

SCHULTZ: If the individual mandate is killed, and as you said, maybe there will be a lot of Americans that won`t buy into it, it`s going to totally screw up the Congressional Budget Office projections and the whole effort here was to bring costs down by getting everybody covered. So what would be the --

POTTER: That`s right.

SCHULTZ: What would be the game plan if they strike down the whole law?

POTTER: Well, we`d be back to square one. And it would be enormously difficult for advocates of reform to mount a campaign again. We know that when the Clinton plan failed, when it never got enough votes, it was years and years before there was enough will among lawmakers to try again. And we just, I don`t think, have the ability to mount another campaign to get the kind of reform we really need. We will be losing an enormous amount.

SCHULTZ: What choices does President Obama have in trying to save other parts of the law if this happens?

POTTER: Well, he`ll have to work with Congress to try to make sure as much of the law goes forward as possible. There are some who believe that with the subsidies still in place, that people will buy coverage that the insurance industry says probably will not. And I tend to think that may be correct. It`s a fallacy to think that people don`t want to be covered. They really do. They just can`t afford to buy the premiums that insurance companies are charging these days.

SCHULTZ: Quickly --

POTTER: Or they can`t get it at any price.

SCHULTZ: Do you think the Medicare expansion will survive?

POTTER: I sure hope so, because that`s a critically important thing. That is one of the chief ways of providing more people with coverage. So that`s very, very important.

SCHULTZ: Well, we have seen a lot of politics come out of this Supreme Court. It`s pretty much a crap shoot on how they`re going to go this time. We`ll see.

That`s THE ED SHOW. I`m Ed Schultz. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. Great to have you back.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2012 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2012 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>